Relationship of CORE and ISOC, timetable for current gTLD inclusion

[Danny Padwa <padw7068@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>]

	I'm a little worried that CORE is not explicitly made
responsible to ISOC by the draft.   Is it responsible to its board
members - the already operational registries?

	I'm sure that someone on the committee can enlighten us (or at
least me) why things were set up this way.  It appears to me that CORE
members could have an interest in raising barriers to entry once they
are in - the terms of their stewardship of a "public trust" should be
better specified.

	Isn't this what ISOC is all about?

	Also - was there a reason that no timetable was provided for
the incorporation of current gTLDs (eg those currently run by NSI)
into the new scheme?   I understand (and strongly support) the desire
to avoid breaking the currently functioning system as the new
mechanism is phased-in.   I am just surprised that with the exception
of a one-sentence "encouragement" in section 5.2, little mention is
made of this evolution.

	Why not specify that at some point (perhaps six or nine months
after the start of the new SLDs) all extant gTLDs should be
redelegated to CORE?   Otherwise there does not seem to be any
incentive for current registrars to join.

- Danny